Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4190
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
Madha Dental College & Hospital, rep. by its Chairman
Versus
The Union of India & Others
W.P. No. 19580 of 2010
Decided On : 22-09-2010
For the Petitioner:K.M. Vijayan, Senior Counsel M/s. K.M. Vijayan Associates, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - J.Ravindran, Assistant Solicitor General, R2 - P. Chandrasekar, Advocate.
Headnote:
DENTISTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1993 - SECTION 10A(4) - DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REGULATIONS, 2006 - REGULATIONS 2(H) AND 19 - RENEWAL OF PERMISSION FOR 3RD YEAR BDS COURSE - ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY REFUSAL - WRIT PETITION - DIRECTIONS TO RENEW PERMISSION AND ALLOW ADMISSIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Christian Minority Trust, runs several institutions including a Dental College. The Dental Council of India (DCI) inspected the college on 06.04.2010 to verify the achievement of the annual target for renewal of Central Government permission for the 3rd year BDS course with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011. The DCI directed the petitioner to make good the deficiencies pointed out and to furnish the compliance report. The petitioner duly complied with all the defects and sent a compliance report to the DCI. However, the DCI recommended not to renew the permission for the 3rd year BDS Course and not to allow admissions in the 1st year BDS course for the academic session 2010-2011. The petitioner approached the High Court for a declaration against the arbitral attitude of the DCI. The High Court directed the DCI to consider the compliance report, take a decision, and forward the recommendations to the Central Government within a period of one week. The DCI conducted a re-inspection and submitted the inspection report dated 10.08.2010. The DCI again recommended not to renew the permission for the 3rd year BDS course and not to allow admissions in BDS course at the petitioner Dental College. The Central Government accepted the recommendations of the DCI and directed the petitioner not to admit fresh batch of students in BDS course at their college for the academic year 2010-2011.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the DCI's refusal to renew the permission for the 3rd year BDS course and to allow admissions in BDS course was arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court noted that the DCI had pointed out deficiencies in the petitioner's college, but these deficiencies were minor in nature and did not warrant the denial of permission. The High Court also noted that the DCI had changed its position on the qualification of three lecturers in the department of Pharmacology, which was arbitrary. The High Court further noted that the DCI had not taken into account the 10 km radius requirement for the distance between the dental college and the attached Government General Hospital. The High Court held that the DCI's actions were contrary to the regulations and the material documents placed before it.
Issues: 1. Whether the DCI's refusal to renew the permission for the 3rd year BDS course and to allow admissions in BDS course was arbitrary and discriminatory? 2. Whether the deficiencies pointed out by the DCI were substantial or minor in nature?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the DCI's refusal to renew the permission for the 3rd year BDS course and to allow admissions in BDS course was arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court noted that the DCI had pointed out deficiencies in the petitioner's college, but these deficiencies were minor in nature and did not warrant the denial of permission. The High Court also noted that the DCI had changed its position on the qualification of three lecturers in the department of Pharmacology, which was arbitrary. The High Court further noted that the DCI had not taken into account the 10 km radius requirement for the distance between the dental college and the attached Government General Hospital. The High Court held that the DCI's actions were contrary to the regulations and the material documents placed before it.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to renew permission to the petitioner institution for 3rd year BDS course and to allow admissions for fresh batch of students in BDS Course for the academic year 2010-2011 forthwith.
1. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal.
This writ petition is filed for declaring the recommendations of the 2nd respondent, in their Letter No.DE-3(266)-2010/A1805 dated 10.08.2010 addressed to the 1st respondent, pursuant to an inspection conducted on 02.08.2010 on the petitioner college as biased, malafide, arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law and consequently direct the 1st respondent to renew the permission for 3rd year BDS course and to allow admissions in fresh batch of students in BDS course for the academic year 2010-11.
2. The brief facts relating to this writ petition are as follows :
(i) The petitioner College is run by Soosaiya Peter Educational Trust, Chennai, which is a Christian Minority Trust. The Trust owns institutions such as Madha Engineering College, Madha Institute of Management Studies, Madha Institute of Computer Applications, Madha College of Nursing, Madha College of Physiotherapy, Madha College of Education, Madha Dental College & Hospital, Madha Teacher Training Institute and Madha Matriculation School, which are duly approved by Governments at Central and State as well as its affiliating bodies. The Government of India, vide its Letter No.V/12017/75/2006-DE dated 13.07.2007 gave formal permission of the Central Government under Section 10A(4) of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993, for establishment of a new Dental College for the year 2007-2008, with an annual intake of 100 students in I BDS Degree Course from the academic year 2007-2008. The University vide its order Proc.No.Affln.I (2)/34144/2006 dated 10.08.2007 granted provisional Affiliation to the petitioner college for starting I BDS Degree course with an annual intake of 100 students from the academic year 2007-2008. The University conducted the first inspection of the college during February 2008 and the DCI conducted the first inspection during April 2008 for grant of 2nd year BDS affiliation. On 03.12.2008, the University vide its order Proc.No.Affln.IV (3)/9637/2008 granted continuance of the provisional affiliation for the academic year 2008-2009.
(ii) The Dental Council of India has inspected the petitioner's college on 06.04.2010 to verify the achievement of the annual target for renewal of Central Government permission for the 3rd year BDS course with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011. The DCI, vide its letter No.DE-3 (266)-2010/A1363 dated 06.05.2010 directed the petitioner to make good the deficiencies pointed out and to furnish the compliance report.
(iii) The petitioner duly complied with all the defects and sent the compliance report to the Secretary DCI by their Letter No.MDCH/DCI/Compliance/756/10 dated 10.05.2010 and further on by their letter No.MDCH/DCI/Compliance/781/10 dated 11.06.2010. The petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to consider the compliance report favourably and pass appropriate orders recommending to the 1st respondent for renewal of permission for continuing the 3rd year and admission to the 1st year BDS course in the petitioner College. However, on the basis of the minutes of the DCI circulated in their official website, it is observed that the Executive Committee has recommended not to renew its permission for the 3rd year BDS Course and not to allow admissions in the 1st year BDS course for the academic session 2010-2011.
(iv) Pursuant thereto, the Executive Committee recommended to the Central Government not to renew its permission for the 3rd year BDS course and not to allow admissions in BDS course with 100 seats for the academic session 2010-2011, due to the following reasons:
Designation Required Available Deficiency Remarks
Professor 6* 6 Nil No deficiency
Reader 13 12 1 There is deficiency of one Reader in the Department of periodontics since Kalpana Santhosh shown as Reader is not accepted as she was not present on the day of inspection
40 MDS-12
BDS-28 Nil No deficiency
* Including Principal
MEDICAL
Designation Required Availabl
